Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.
as the topic implies, WTH?
Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.
teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here
GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.
-Goo
I bet you didn't do that before coming and posting here!Hitchkok wrote:Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.
as the topic implies, WTH?
Clarkey wrote:I bet you didn't do that before coming and posting here!Hitchkok wrote:Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.
as the topic implies, WTH?
teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here
GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.
-Goo
Universe wrote:You don't have a case, as Lord Thriller clearly explained.
MajorLeeHurts wrote:^ stole the car and my Booze and my heart * sobs*
Jack wrote: Just wanna be more like you, Master Thriller.
"Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the gods, Browsers shall be changed to carry the internet out amongst the peoples and we will spread Firefox to all the unbelievers. The power of the Firefox will be felt far and wide and the wicked users of IE shall be converted to use the true browsers."
Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...
Universe wrote:You don't have a case, as Lord Thriller clearly explained.
MajorLeeHurts wrote:^ stole the car and my Booze and my heart * sobs*
Jack wrote: Just wanna be more like you, Master Thriller.
"Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the gods, Browsers shall be changed to carry the internet out amongst the peoples and we will spread Firefox to all the unbelievers. The power of the Firefox will be felt far and wide and the wicked users of IE shall be converted to use the true browsers."
Malx wrote:Make kids not cancer!
Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.
Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.
Thriller wrote:What you guys want to talk about now? BOXERS vs BREIFS?
Fair enough.Hitchkok wrote:had her post been somewhat less cryptic, and somewhat more reasoned (as beffiting a post in the debate section), i would have.
anyway, it is not a personal issue, but a public one. therefore i see no reason to keep it private.
Curtailing intelligent debate? Have you looked at the section of late? If anything curtailed intelligent debate, it is the increasing presence of 'religious' arguments. The dogmatic mannerisms of the section's population preclude actual debate. Unless you would consider repeating your arguments ad nauseam "because they're right" intelligent debate, but that would surprise me.Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.
And that is in part the very core of the issue. People are too invested in their own mindset, too convinced that they should convince others that their frame of reference is the only frame of reference with the potential of revealing the Ultimate Truth.Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...
Really? The population of the debate section has shown not to be able to handle the category of subjects, instead of debate, the threads have become pulpits for repetitive arguments. Not 'boring', no.. non-debate. And non-debate does not belong in the debate section. Does it?Dr. House wrote:There is no need for such a rule, it's pointless and flies in the face of "intelligent discussion."
"Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the gods, Browsers shall be changed to carry the internet out amongst the peoples and we will spread Firefox to all the unbelievers. The power of the Firefox will be felt far and wide and the wicked users of IE shall be converted to use the true browsers."
I could see that work, yes. I have told Thriller this in our private conversation, a completely uncensored (except to stay on topic, the bare minimum) "Pulpit forum" added to the Debate section would be a good option in my opinion.Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?